Liberalism. Libertarianism. Anarchism.

Well let's continue the series.

Why is a third-party, violence-by-proxy guarantee of the diffuse individual ownership of parceled land and goods, called "property," not called "social engineering"? What is the innate legitimacy of such a system? The answer: such a system provides the conditions necessary to achieve the greatest general welfare and prosperity. The follow-up: doesn't that open the door to other schemes to promote welfare and prosperity? Where's the deontological line?

Libertarianism isn't really a philosophy that repudiates coercion. Libertarians believe in government, albeit government strictly curtailed and circumscribed. (Question: by whom? For how long?) Obviously their outlook owes much to classical liberalism. But why is it obvious that securing private property rights is within the legitimate purview of state responsibility, whereas, say, guaranteeing gender equity in the workplace is not? Well, you say, the former is far less intrusive. Preventing the expropriation of property through theft or intimidation is a much less subjective matter than determining what constitutes gender fairness. Is it?

Libertarians believe in a justice system, albeit a limited one. (Limited by whom? For how long?) Defining murder is easier than defining securities fraud. Outlawing armed robbery is different from regulating a stock market. How much easier? How different?

Once you begin to justify a state, the line between what is and isn't in its compelling interest blur. Establishing some entity, some agency, whose purpose is to establish and maintain a base-level social order for the provision, at least pursuit, of general welfare and prosperity (personal or otherwise) is social engineering. Why not just advocate for anarchy? Why not advocate for a system in which no third-party collective, no state entity, has coercive authority over anyone.

Well, you say, then someone will just gather up a gang and establish a . . .

Which may be true. But if that's the case, what's the bright distinction between chartering a gang and knuckling under to one?